Port Moresby, 6 June 1967
55.
Further to the report sent Saturday about march in Port Moresby,1 Minister and yourself might wish to have following observations.
The march was orderly. Oala and other leaders lived up to their assurances to me and to the police.2 There was a little cheering and booing but no evidence of intent to be disorderly or violent. Some of the placards were racial in tone but majority were naive. Only three Europeans were observed taking part but a number were present at Konedobu to watch. There were few speeches. After the presentation of the petition to myself the crowd was told by Oala Oala–Rarua that that was the end of the demonstration and they then dispersed without further incident. Not all the original group of leaders took part. Taureka disassociated himself. I am checking to see whether others did the same. The group which presented the petition to me consisted of Oala Oala–Rarua, Albert Maori Kiki, Joseph Nombri and one representative of the teachers. Several others including Romney3 attempted to join the deputation but were not permitted.
The so-called petition was merely a restatement in summary terms of the Public Service Association’s views on the Arbitrator’s determination.
A group of MHA’s including Simogen, Brokam, Toliman, Lapun, Tabua, Wegra Kenu, assembled at my office in order, as they put it, to emphasise their support of the Administration and myself personally. They said they strongly disapproved both of the march and of the fact that it was directed to the Administration.
We did not observe other MHA’s taking part with the possible exception of Gaudi Mirau. There were, however, others who were observing various parts of it.
As to what was achieved by the march it is early to say. Certainly the leaders have made a point in demonstrating that there is substantial dislike of determination. However, our estimate is that only some 25% of the crowd were actually public servants. The remainder joined in either out of interest or because though not directly involved they wished to indicate sympathy. But the fact that a number of local officers and others strongly disagree with the Arbitrator’s decision was already well known. March does not justify further conclusion which PSA doubtless hoped for that there is a deterioration in the situation or that race relations are going to get worse.
However, much will depend on the extent to which the Administration can actively put the Government case and also demonstrate to the majority who are ignorant of the terms of the determination that in fact there are considerable advances in the prospects open to public servants since the 1966 revision and the earlier 1964 decision.4
[NAA: A452, 1967/3032]
1 The march was a protest against the arbitrator’s decision on salaries for local public servants (see Document 108). Hay had described the march in factual terms and conveyed a press statement he had made: ‘I have only this comment to make: several experienced public servants took part in today’s march, even though they know that they have appropriate ways of seeking redress of what they now believe to be a grievance through their departmental heads, through the Public Service Commissioner or through their Association. If they, and those who may have advised, have set a pattern for the reaction of the Territory service of the future in respect of a decision which does not please its officers then they bear a considerable responsibility’. Hay advised Territories that there ‘would appear no cause for concern and no cause for disciplinary action against anyone’ (telex 19, Hay to DOT, 3 June 1967, NAA: A452, 1967/3032).
2 See Document 112.
3 Evertius Romney, occupation unidentified.
4 On 10 June, the approach made by the PSA to Holt (see footnote 2, Document 112) was rejected by Acting Prime Minister John McEwen (letter, McEwen to J.G. Smith, 10 June 1967, NAA: A452, 1967/3032) and on 13 June the Governor-General approved the arbitrator’s ruling (see minute by Barnes for the Executive Council, 13 June 1967, ibid.). In a press statement, Barnes rejected the view that arbitrator Matthews had not dealt properly with the claims before him and he described personal attacks which had been made on Matthews as ‘reprehensible’. Barnes also underlined the ‘greatly improved’ position of local officers that would result from implementation of the arbitrator’s decision (NAA: A1838, 936/4 part 2. Territories was agitated about the attacks on Matthews—see brief for Barnes and Warwick Smith under cover of note by Joliffe, 3 July 1967, NAA: A452, 1967/4386).